RUSH: Patrick J. Buchanan, column, Human Events. "In the Long Run, is the GOP Dead? -- Since 1928, only Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush have won the presidency while capturing both houses of Congress for the GOP." Only twice, since 1928. "In his 49-state landslide, Richard Nixon failed to take either House. In his two landslides, Ronald Reagan won back only the Senate. Yet Mitt Romney is even money to pull off the hat trick." Mitt Romney, even money to pull off the House and the Senate, when Reagan couldn't do it with 49 states, and Nixon couldn't do it.
Now, don't read too much into that. It's just an indication of where we are. "With this hopeful prospect, why the near despair among so many Republicans about the long term? In his New York Times report, 'In California, GOP Fights Steep Decline,' Adam Nagourney delves into the reasons. In the Golden Land, a state Nixon carried all five times he was on a national ticket and Reagan carried by landslides all four times he ran, the GOP does not hold a single statewide office." Not a single statewide office in California.
The Republican Party "gained not a single House seat in the 2010 landslide. Party registration has fallen to 30 percent of the California electorate and is steadily sinking."
Now, let that settle in. You may know it, but having it read to you, hit you right between the eyes, not one Republican seat in the 2010 midterms. Thirty percent party registration of the California electorate and sinking.
"Why? It is said that California Republicans are too out of touch, too socially conservative on issues like right-to-life and gay rights. 'When you look at the population growth,' says GOP consultant Steve Schmidt, 'the actual party is shrinking. It’s becoming more white. It’s becoming older.' Race, age and ethnicity are at the heart of the problem. And they portend not only the party’s death in California, but perhaps its destiny in the rest of America. Consider. Almost 90 percent of all Republican voters in presidential elections are white. Almost 90 percent are Christians. But whites fell to 74 percent of the electorate in 2008 and were only 64 percent of the population. Christians are down to 75 percent of the population from 85 in 1990. The falloff continues and is greatest among the young.
"Consider ethnicity. Hispanics were 15 percent of the US population in 2008 and 7.4 percent of the electorate. Both percentages will inexorably rise. Yet in their best years, like 2004, Republicans lose the Hispanic vote 3-to-2. In bad years, like 2008, they lose it 2-to-1. Whites are already a minority in California, and Hispanics will eventually become the majority." So you can say good-bye to California as far as the Republicans are concerned.
"Asian-Americans voted 3-to-2 for Obama, black Americans 24-to-1. The Asian population in California and the nation is growing rapidly. The black population, 13 percent of the nation, is growing steadily. Whites, already a minority in our two most populous states, will be less than half the US population by 2041 and a minority in 10 states by 2020. Consider now the Electoral College picture. Of the seven mega-states, California, New York and Illinois appear lost to the GOP. Pennsylvania has not gone Republican since 1988. Ohio and Florida, both crucial, are now swing states. Whites have become a minority in Texas. When Texas goes, America goes."
Buchanan's right. Texas goes, America goes, as far as the Republican Party is concerned. So Buchanan says, "This year could be the last hurrah. The GOP must work harder to win Hispanic votes, we are told. But consider the home economics and self-interest of Hispanics. Half of all US wage-earners pay no income tax. Yet that half and their families receive free education K-12, Medicaid, rent supplements, food stamps, earned income tax credits, Pell grants, welfare payments, unemployment checks and other benefits. Why should poor, working- and middle-class Hispanics, the vast majority, vote for a party that will reduce taxes they don’t pay, but cut the benefits they do receive?"
Let me ask that question to you again. "Why should poor, working- and middle-class Hispanics, the vast majority, vote for a party that will reduce taxes they don’t pay, but cut the benefits they do receive?" Republicans are running around talking about tax cuts for everybody, but we know the numbers, 47, 48% don't pay taxes, so big whoop. But the Republicans also, "We're gonna have to cut entitlements. We're gonna have to cut this leviathan," and we do, there's no question. We have to cut the size of government if this country's gonna be saved, if it's gonna be preserved, but, as Buchanan says, the voting interests of the Republicans, why should they vote for a party that's gonna reduce taxes they don't pay and cut the benefits that they get and they like?
"The majority of Latinos, African-Americans, immigrants and young people 18 to 25 pay no income taxes yet enjoy a panoply of government benefits. Does not self-interest dictate a vote for the party that will let them keep what they have and perhaps give them more, rather than the party that will pare back what they now receive?"
"But, Rush, but, Rush, don't they understand that there's going to be an end?"
No, they don't. That message hasn't been forcefully enough delivered. Why should anybody think the end of the road is at hand? We keep raising the debt limit and everything goes on. Everybody points to Spain and Greece and so forth, but it really doesn't happen here. It is going to, but it hasn't. It's hard for people to believe something's gonna happen that hadn't happened before. And the degree to which our demise is scheduled hasn't happened before, and it will happen. But there's no evidence of it here. So the messaging to people, "Okay, you like what you get, I can understand that, but the means by which it's provided to you is about to end." They don't believe it. I mean, the guy on the Democrat side running for office is promising more and more. If it's gonna end, how can he do that?
So Buchanan asks, "What are the historic blunders of the Grand Old Party that may yet appear on the autopsy report as probable causes of death? First, the party, intimidated by name-calling, refused to stop a tidal wave of immigration that brought 40 million people here whose families depend heavily on government." Forty million immigrants, illegal, over the course of who knows however many years, the vast majority depend on government. "We needed a time-out to assimilate them and see them move out of the tax-consuming sector of the nation," and into the tax paying sector, but that didn't happen.
We didn't assimilate, and we all know why, because the political pressure of political correctness didn't permit it. Plus, we have a bunch of Democrats who don't think there's anything so great about America. Why should we spend time having 'em assimilate when we're trying to tear this country apart ourselves? "Republicans acquiesced in the importation of a new electorate that may provide the decisive votes to send the party to the ash heap of history." This is why so many people, the Tea Party and others, have been so alarmed about illegal immigration, because of how it adds up electorally, in addition to the obvious cultural problems associated with it, the lack of assimilation.
And you couple this, as I say, with a Democrat Party that doesn't think this country's any great shakes anyway and is more than happy to accommodate people who don't want to become part of it. The Democrat Party pretty much says, "Yeah, why should you assimilate? This is an unjust, immoral country. All it's done is allow the rich people to exploit everybody and steal everything they've got." The Democrat Party is making an excuse for poverty, maybe even turning it into something valorous. It certainly isn't stigmatized.
It's a badge of honor, because it's not your fault. Republicans, they prevent it! They've taken everything from you. They have gotten rich by taking everything you had. (I never understood the math of that, but nevertheless.) "Second, Republicans, when enacting tax cuts, repeatedly dropped millions of taxpayers off the rolls..." Now, I know what Buchanan means by this. See, the Republicans, in order to prove that they weren't what the Democrats were saying about them...
The Republicans, in order to prove that they weren't just the party of the rich (which is a laugher) did eliminate taxes. They worked with Democrats to eliminate taxes for a whole bunch of Americans, saying it was compassion -- see, we care about you! -- and what they ended up doing was "creating a huge class that contributes little to pay for the expanding cornucopia of benefits it receives. Third, the social revolution of the 1960s captured the culture and converted much of the nation.
"According to a new Pew poll, the number of Americans who profess a belief in no religion at all has tripled since the 1990s and is now one in five," 20% of the country profess a belief in no religion. "If your racial and ethnic voter base is aging, shrinking and dying, your moral code is being rejected, and the tax-consuming class has been allowed to grow to equal or to dwarf the taxpaying class, the Grand Old Party has a problem. But then so, too, does the country."
That's the problem.
If the Republicans have a problem, it's even worse for the country.
Now, as I told you before I read this, it's a compelling column, is it not?
Buchanan makes compelling arguments there. Buchanan's essentially saying: We've reached the point where there are more takers than producers, and they'll continue to vote as takers, continue to be takers. Yet, Romney might win this. Buchanan thinks it will be a last hurrah, though, if Romney wins it, and wins the House and the Senate to go along with it. Now, if that happens, doesn't that say something a little different than Buchanan's premise? If Romney wins this... Let's be bluntly honest: If Romney wins this, one of the huge factors is that a whole lot of Americans don't want any part of an America like this.
RUSH: Now, one thing, folks, on this Buchanan business. Incumbent in this piece is you've gotta assume that the Republican Party's not conservative. Buchanan's not saying conservatives have lost. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but as I analyze his column, he's strictly talking about the mainstream Republican Party is who's losing elections. I have always believed we can get the Hispanic vote and the women's vote and any other number of votes if we just effectively trumpet conservatism. I myself have done it. Now, I know what I do is different than seek votes and get elected to public office, but still, I believe in it. The Republican Party doesn't. That's its problem, or one of many.
RUSH: Alfred, Tulare, California, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Yes, sir. How you doing, Rush?
RUSH: Excellent. Thank you very much, sir.
CALLER: I just wanted to call and tell you how much I love your show and I've been listening to you since 1995. But I wanted to give you some hope, to tell you that there's a lot of Hispanics out here that, even though we don't get Rush Limbaugh in Spanish, there's people that have Mexican shows that kind of talk about the stuff you talk about. I make $60,000, $65 in gross last year. I spent about $40,000 in fuel, $35,000 in fuel, not counting maintenance, not counting registration and insurance fees. And over here in the Central Valley, California, sometimes we have to work seasonal, so sometimes, you know, there's times where I'm on food stamps. I mean, even though I gross $65,000, I was still on food stamps. If I was able to have lower gas prices, I would love to pay my share, you know what I mean?
RUSH: Yeah. Yeah, that's a lot of fuel costs you've got, bro.
CALLER: We spend about four bucks a gallon out here, and because of fuel so high --
CALLER: -- the trucking companies we work for don't want to pay the high prices, so they take it out on the independent subhaulers.
RUSH: Well, now, how many people do you know, and don't be insulted by the question. I'm just trying to learn here. You're trying to find a way to work, you're trying to find a way to make it happen working. How many people are like you who want the same thing out of life that you're trying to find?
CALLER: There's about five to 10,000 subhaulers in the Central Valley out here, and if you talk to one guy, you talk to another guy, everybody knows everybody by the time you get around to the next guy, and there's a lot of people that voted for Bush. I mean I hate when people talk about Bush, 'cause I admire Bush --
RUSH: Yeah, see, this is the thing, what bothers me about -- and I love Buchanan, don't misunderstand, but there's a tendency to treat all these groups monolithic and maybe they are right now, but it's only because they haven't been appealed to in the right way or approached the right way, because in human terms they're not monolithic. Anyway, Alfred, thanks for the call. I appreciate it.
RUSH: So I received a very thought-provoking note. And I'm sure, by the way, that this note is going to reflect the way a whole lot of you feel. It's an interesting think piece. "Dear Rush: Don't you think that when the government has as its purpose the destruction of the institutions that promote the kind of society we've had in the past -- when the government buys off more people to the point where they outnumber the rest of us -- that the country cannot survive as a free country? We can't survive as a free people.
"It's not just Hispanics, blacks, Asians, et cetera. More and more whites are getting caught up in this. It's a huge problem. It's hard to fix. And as Buchanan's piece points out, we already knew it. The big blue states demonstrate it. And the big blue cities in the big blue states, in many cases, illustrate it." So let's take a look at Buchanan's piece. Let's focus on California. It's a great example. You know, the thing about it is I love California. I used to live there. I lived in Sacramento for 3-1/2 years.
I have a lot of friends in Southern California, and every time I'm out there, I absolutely love it. Now, I don't pay their taxes, and I don't live there, but... How to say this? 'Cause I don't dispute anything Buchanan said about this. The first time I was in California was 1985. And every time I've been back since, it looks the same. Places I go in California look the same. The things that I do there are the same. Yet I know that the state is a mess. And I talk to my friends who live in California and I say, "Do you know what's coming? Your tax rates are already though the roof. Do you know what's coming?"
My friends wouldn't even think of leaving.
Now, most of them are in the media business, and it's a media capital. Southern California. And all their friends are there. And yet there are people leaving left and right. It kind of goes to my point earlier. We hear all this talk about, "Well, you see Greece? That's us." And, "You see Spain? That's us." A lot of people don't see us that way. They never have seen the US that way, and even if they look at blue states or blue cities that have fallen apart, they still don't look at the country that way.
Because, in their minds, it really hasn't happened. So all these warning clarions about where we're headed, people don't see any sign of it. And one of the reasons they don't is there's this benevolent government ready to pick up the slack in case you fall on hard times. But there's no denying that the government, and particularly this administration -- no denying -- are destroying the institutions that promote the kind of society we have had in the past.